SynthesisEuropean radiology2019
Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Summation of ossification ratios of the distal radius, distal ulna, and proximal radius: a novel parameter for pediatric bone age assessment.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- External Validation of Deeplasia for Automated Bone Age Assessment Compared with Four Commercial AI Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bone age assessment: comparative analysis of Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse 3 by pediatric radiologists and endocrinologists.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Construction and Validation of a Simplified Bone Age Assessment Method Based on Three Key Bones from the TW3 system.Endocrine · 2026Article
- Final height prediction of girls at menarche: a combined model using left hand and wrist bone age, knee radiomic scores, and clinical characteristics.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Article
- Biologically informed dual deep learning for skeletal maturity prediction in pediatrics.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Observational
- Assessing skeletal maturity in a UK modern female population.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- A comparison of two artificial intelligence-based methods for assessing bone age in Turkish children: BoneXpert and VUNO Med-Bone Age.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Population-specific calibration and validation of an open-source bone age AI.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Growth Prediction in Orthodontics: ASystematic Review of Past Methods up to Artificial Intelligence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Influence of Biological Maturation on the Career Trajectory of Football Players: Does It Predict Elite Success?Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- The Validation of the Greulich and Pyle Atlas for Radiological Bone Age Assessments in a Pediatric Population from the Canary Islands.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Acceleration of skeletal maturation in Central Europe over the last two decades: insights from two cohorts of healthy children.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- The impact of HIV infection on skeletal maturity in peripubertal children in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Does ethnicity influence bone health index in children? A pilot study.Pediatric radiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of classical methods for bone age determination with Capitohamate planimetry on wrist X-rays.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Bone Age Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence in Korean Pediatric Population: A Comparison of Deep-Learning Models Trained With Healthy Chronological and Greulich-Pyle Ages as Labels.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Development of a New Korean Standard Bone Age Model: A Paradigm for AI-Powered Pediatric Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether the Greulich and Pyle (G&P) atlas is applicable when applied to populations of different ethnicity.
methodsA systematic review of studies published between 1959 and 15th February 2017 identified from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was undertaken. Quality of the studies was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence tool. Meta-analysis used mean differences and standard deviations as summary statistics for the difference between bone age (BA) and chronological age (CA).
resultsA total of 49 studies were included of which 27 (55%) were related to Caucasian populations. Of the 49 eligible studies, 35 were appropriate for further meta-analysis. In African females, meta-analysis showed a significant mean difference between BA and CA of 0.37 years (95% CI 0.04, 0.69). In Asian males, meta-analysis showed significant differences between BA and CA of -1.08, -1.35, -1.07, -0.80 and 0.50 years for chronological ages of 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 years, respectively. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between BA and CA in African males, Asian females, Caucasians and Hispanics.
conclusionsThe G&P standard is imprecise and should be used with caution when applied to Asian male and African female populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes. KEY POINTS: • In African females, bone age is significantly advanced when compared to the G&P standard. • In Asian males, bone age is significantly delayed between 6 and 9 years old inclusive and significantly advanced at 17 years old when compared to the G&P standard. • The G&P atlas should be used with caution when applied to Asian and African populations, particularly when aiming to determine chronological age for forensic/legal purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.